In my opinion, Podhoretz writes a self-congratulatory
work on the collection of Marxist oriented intellectuals in the post WW II
generation. For the most part they are Columbia University related and works on
such “journals” as Commentary, Partisan Review, and the like. Barrett is somewhat
self-effacing and presents his fellow participants in all their glory and grunge.
He speaks of such fellow travelers as Hannah Arendt and Mary McCarthy, the philosopher
(former lover of Heidegger who was the German philosopher and Nazi follower)
and the Vassar graduate who seems to have made her career by publicizing her
sexual exploits starting when she was fourteen! Then there was Rhav and Delmore
Schwartz, the brilliant and socially complex participants. This was New York
from 1930 to about 1960. It is New York when Greenwich Village was a place
where one could walk through book stores and drink coffee at all hours, have
conversations on any author one felt important and find a fellow
conversationalist to compete with one’s views. Now of course Greenwich Village
is NYU real estate and millennial startups.
Now Podhoretz starts as a fellow traveler of the left wing
associates and then sees this a means to promote himself to some form of
greatness. Unlike today where such greatness is being an early player in some
start up then the player was someone who would write and publish a critique of
some alleged work of art. The edgier the review was the more one felt a sense
of self-worth.
Podhoretz presents his perceived path to glory. It was his
ability to come out of Brooklyn as an East European Jew and move across the
East River to Morningside Heights and achieve greatness by disavowing and
abandoning his past, and taking up the culture of his new found associates.
Eventually Podhoretz becomes one of the NeoCons in the early 1970s and into the
Bush II administration. Specifically he was a major player in the Coalition for
a Democratic Majority, which I also played a small role in when at MIT, before
going to Washington. It was this change from classic Democratic to
neo-conservatives, a pro-Defense move of what were called Jackson Democrats.
Strange that so many started as extreme left wing critics of the arts and
became strong right wing critics of an evolving Democratic Party, a post-Vietnam
Progressive movement now in full bloom.
Barrett by contrast is a well-accepted philosophy professor,
who made his acclaim as an early interpreter of Existentialism. In fact Barrett
had the opportunity to provide some support to the travels of Simone de Beauvoir
on her US trip post WW II. He had great insight into her views, often her
confused and distorted perceptions of the US. What contrasts Barrett is that he
is a true intellectual whereas Podhoretz is an interpreter of current political
movements. Barrett aged into a classic professor and Podhoretz into a classic
political commentator.
Thus Podhoretz’s book is worth the read peripherally for
understanding the people and the times, but more so to understand Podhoretz,
whereas Barrett is less understanding Barrett than in understanding the many personalities
he so ably brings to life.
There does not seem to be any group of intellectuals like
these. Those that try have flocked to cable TV and become participants in the cacophony
of the new medium. Clearly McLuhan and his understanding of how a new medium
can change what we understand as truth changes dramatically.
The interesting question would be; will the millennials use
the evolving media to create their own new truths, and will we ever be able to
understand the past by having a document like Barrett’s again?
Posts
